IMPORTANT POINT
When SLP is withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court by filing review, High Court ought to have recorded a finding on dispute whether or not interest on principal was added twice during execution of money decree.

JUDGMENT

Thakker, J.-Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Review Petition No. 804 of 2002 on 26th March, 2003 partly reviewing the order dated July 5, 2002 in C.R.P. No. 4299 of 2001.

3. The case has a chequered history. On September 14, 1987, the respondent herein filed a suit being O.S.No. 460 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Mysore against the appellant-firm and its partners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest. On June 23, 1989, the Court of the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Mysore passed a judgment in the said suit based on admission. However, before the decree was drawn up, the parties to the said suit filed a Joint Memo praying that the judgment be confirmed only to the Principal amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and that other matters be left open for final adjudication. Accordingly on January 6, 1990, the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge, Mysore passed a partial decree for the principal amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The II Additional City Civil Judge, Mysore, after trial, passed a judgment on February 2, 1993 on the rest of the issues and a decree was accordingly drawn up.

4. On October 5, 1993, the respondent herein filed Execution Case No. 1514 of 1993 in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore against the appellant firm and its partners claiming even the suit amount with interest payable as on the date of the Execution Case to be Rs. 4,22,269.5 ps. (i.e. Rs. 2,20,000/- towards principal and Rs. 2,02,269.05 towards interest @ 12% p.a. from June 30, 1979 to September 14, 1987, after deducting Rs. 14,430.95 as per the decree). In the course of the execution proceedings, it is stated that the appellant paid Rs. 6,54,566/- to the respondent. On January 23, 1999, the respondent filed a Memo of Calculation in Execution Case No. 1514 of 1993 claiming that as on that date a sum of Rs. 3,72,204.10 was still payable by the appellant towards satisfaction of the decree. In the said Memo, contended the appellant, that the respondent claimed Rs. 4,15,767.25 in excess by adding interest twice on the principal amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- from June 30, 1979 to September 14, 1987 and also adding interest on the interest. The Executing Court passed an order on April 16, 1999 accepting the Memo of Calculation of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1572 of 1999 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court granted interim stay of execution proceedings on July 7, 1999 subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 50,000/- in the Executing Court which was complied with by the appellant. The respondent-decree-holder withdrew the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- taking the total payment made by the appellant/judgment-debtor to the respondent/decree-holder in the execution proceedings to Rs. 7,04,566/-. On July 7, 1999, the High Court disposed of the C.R.P. No. 1572 of 1999 with a direction to the Executing Court to calculate the amounts afresh. Accordingly, the Executing Court prepared a Memo of Calculation which showed Rs. 3,97,380.81 as balance amount payable by the appellant to the respondent.

5. It is alleged by the appellant that in the Memo of Calculation, a claim of Rs. 4,15,767.25 at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were also included, despite the payment made by the appellant and in spite of objection of the appellant in that regard. It was also alleged that as per the direction of the High Court, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid by the appellant to the respondent on August 27, 1997 which had not been taken into consideration. Hence, on November 8, 1999, the appellant filed written arguments in Execution Case No. 1514 of 1993 along with a Memo of Calculation showing the excess liability of the appellant under the decree.

6. The Executing Court, by an order dated September 14, 2001, accepted the Memo of Calculation prepared by its office and hel